In Reply to: Did anyone else read the BSG QOL review in TAS? posted by mkuller on February 8, 2012 at 20:53:22:
I heard this demoed in s system last week.
There are a couple issues we noted:
1) when comparing using QOL in bypass mode with it engaged, the QOL is about ~2db louder engaged than with bypass making comparisons different.
2) The bypass mode is anything but transparent. You might like the QOL engaged when compared to the bypass mode but I (and others) preferred it completely out of the system since the bypass mode almost sounds like it uses a hi-pass filter.
3) the sound with QOL engaged did sound fuller and soundstage width increased. Conversely, center imaging almost disappeared. The guy demoing the QOL said that he had to toe-in his speakers a bit to compensate for the change in center imaging.
We only spent about 20 minutes playing around with it. IMHO, it does change the sound and in some ways (soundstage width, mid range fullness) it sounded better but in other ways it did not.
We had it hooked up to a scope and could see that it was changing phase from the bypass mode.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: Did anyone else read the BSG QOL review in TAS? - TubeDriver 08:57:11 02/15/12 (5)
- RE: Did anyone else read the BSG QOL review in TAS? - Tony Lauck 10:34:39 02/18/12 (4)
- RE: Did anyone else read the BSG QOL review in TAS? - TubeDriver 06:50:45 03/07/12 (0)
- RE: Did anyone else read the BSG QOL review in TAS? - TubeDriver 13:43:15 02/19/12 (2)
- RE: Did anyone else read the BSG QOL review in TAS? - Tony Lauck 18:15:06 02/19/12 (1)
- RE: Did anyone else read the BSG QOL review in TAS? - TubeDriver 19:59:57 02/19/12 (0)